The Supreme Court has a tough question ahead: Where do you draw the line between free speech and discrimination?The case headed to the high court in the new term that begins next month centers on Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.Phillips claims he shouldn’t be forced to under the state’s anti-discrimination law and gained a strong ally this week when the Trump administration filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf.Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and DOJ attorneys claim there is no clear line between Phillips’s speech and that of his clients when he designs and creates a custom wedding cake.“He is not merely tolerating someone else’s message on his property; he is giving effect to their message by crafting a unique product with his own two hands,” the administration said in its 41-page brief.

Eilzel wrote:His free speech isn't being infringed upon at all. The only people who have to see the cake beyond him are the buyers and wedding guests. He is just making a cake, that's his job.

Would you agree with that statement if a gay Baker in Australia was asked to make a "vote not to gay narriage" cake??

Or are we in for a slice of your famous "but that's different" logic ??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Would you agree with that statement if a gay Baker in Australia was asked to make a "vote not to gay narriage" cake??

Or are we in for a slice of your famous "but that's different" logic ??

I'd ask what on earth anyone would want such a cake for. I'd also ask if they wanted me to remove a 't' and change an 'n' to an 'm' but that's besides the point I think

I suppose, since the law is what it is there (not every country is as advanced as others) it would be impossible not to allow them such a cake.

I thought you didn't show your lighter side to homophobic cnuts like me??

But you'd be ok with it??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Eilzel wrote:I wouldn't be 'ok' with it, but I'd legally have to do it.

I'd still ask what the point was though lol

Why wouldn't you be ok with it??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

The cake would obviously be declaring its support of a vote to deny my rights to marriage. As mentioned in my lovely rant... well you know what I think of those people

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Answer me this SmellyIs the UK a complete shithole now that it has gay marriage? is the UK now a place where no good person would want to live, a place that should be purged with fire as unredeemable since it now has gay marriage? Are YOU now gay cause of gay marriage? have the come around and forcefully sodomized you since the UK now has gay marriage? Does the UK now openly support encourage pedophiles now?

Cause IF it isn't, then the vote No campaign is full of shit since that is what it suggests will happen

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

You should never force anyone promote ideas that go against their wishes.

Are you seriously telling me you would force a gay baker to make a cake against their wishes, say one that deemed homosexuality as a sin using a biblical verse?

How about Muslims being forced to print pictures of Muhammad?

How about Jews being forced to print the book of a holocaust denier?

A Republican baker being asked to make a celebratory Democrat cake and visa versa.

A Mexican immigrant being forced to build a cake for Trump saying "build a wall"

I could go on the list is endless.

There is a fine line here.

Its wrong to discriminate against people because of who they are, but this is also wrong in forcing people to go against their beleifs and they thus end up being discriminated against themselves. No matter that I disagree with them on their views on gay marriage or their partiular belief. As marriage is a belief whether for hetrosexuals or homosexuals.

Yes its wrong to deny adults the same rights under law as anyone else, but you cross over to very dangerous grounds here that could see many people forced to promote beliefs that go against their beliefs.

So is it right to force a buisness to promote the idea of something they object to?

there is nothing to debateyou are trying to make a debate based solely on your ignorance of discrimination laws.

another case of you misunderstanding the point to try and make a fallacious argument.that is not debate end of story

The POINT, since you miss it, is a BUSINESS is NOT a PERSON, it is not entitled to protection under discrimination laws. no one is forced to run a business but if they run a business they must comply with the law.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

You should never force anyone promote ideas that go against their wishes.

Are you seriously telling me you would force a gay baker to make a cake against their wishes, say one that deemed homosexuality as a sin using a biblical verse?

How about Muslims being forced to print pictures of Muhammad?

How about Jews being forced to print the book of a holocaust denier?

A Republican baker being asked to make a celebratory Democrat cake and visa versa.

A Mexican immigrant being forced to build a cake for Trump saying "build a wall"

I could go on the list is endless.

There is a fine line here.

Its wrong to discriminate against people because of who they are, but this is also wrong in forcing people to go against their beleifs and they thus end up being discriminated against themselves. No matter that I disagree with them on their views on gay marriage or their partiular belief. As marriage is a belief whether for hetrosexuals or homosexuals.

Yes its wrong to deny adults the same rights under law as anyone else, but you cross over to very dangerous grounds here that could see many people forced to promote beliefs that go against their beliefs.

So is it right to force a buisness to promote the idea of something they object to?

So you would force all the people within buisnesses I have stated to promote ideas that go against their beliefs.

Thus discriminating against them.

Again a business does not have a right to deny a service to someone who is gay, simple because they are gay and wanted just a cake.

That is discrimination.

To force the buisness to promote an idea on that cake, they are against is also discrimination.

Bumped for Eilzel, as its clear Veya, has no interest to debate this and I am tired of trying to reason with a child.

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

The point I'm getting at, is do you understand and accept how this action could cause anamosity towards the gay community and cause others who are undecided about gay marriage and homosexuality in general could be pushed into the no camp??

You said on the "women got fired" thread that actions have consequences

Do you stand by that statement and accept that this action could result in a consequence of increased negativity and hostility towards the gay community, and if so is it self imposed??

Or is this a case of "fuck them they are homophobes burn them at the stake"

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

veya_victaous wrote:You can't make a debate based on your own ignorance. I like many other posters are sick of it, as this is your usual MO.

why don't you try doing some basic research before attempting to create 'debate' by which I mean 'argue for no reason using the same lame techniques that in no way qualify as debating'

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

The point I'm getting at, is do you understand and accept how this action could cause anamosity towards the gay community and cause others who are undecided about gay marriage and homosexuality in general could be pushed into the no camp??

You said on the "women got fired" thread that actions have consequences

Do you stand by that statement and accept that this action could result in a consequence of increased negativity and hostility towards the gay community, and if so is it self imposed??

Or is this a case of "fuck them they are homophobes burn them at the stake"

Do you know how flawed that argument is?

Should Israel concede its nation state, based because some people do not think Israel has a right to exist?

Shall people not print satire of Muhammad, incase Muslims become angry?

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

How do you know they would never be asked for?

You do not and even more likley that it would happen based on some rulling.

You are running awy from the point at hand and at how such a precedence would open up a can of worms.

So you would force all the people within buisnesses I have stated to promote ideas that go against their beliefs.

Thus discriminating against them.

Again a business does not have a right to deny a service to someone who is gay, simple because they are gay and wanted just a cake.

That is discrimination.

To force the buisness to promote an idea on that cake, they are against is also discrimination.

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Last edited by smelly-bandit on Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:25 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

veya_victaous wrote:You can't make a debate based on your own ignorance. I like many other posters are sick of it, as this is your usual MO.

why don't you try doing some basic research before attempting to create 'debate' by which I mean 'argue for no reason using the same lame techniques that in no way qualify as debating'

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

No You haven't addressed any point Address the point. it is the LAW, the one and only point of any relevance

YES all your 'points' have to do it if they want to run a business, not a debate it's not discrimination because they are a business not a person in the transactions. AGAIN, BASIC research and understanding of discrimination laws would have totally closed all those 'points' you think you have made. Don't like it? SPEAK TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

No You haven't addressed any point Address the point. it is the LAW, the one and only point of any relevance

YES all your 'points' have to do it if they want to run a business, not a debate it's not discrimination because they are a business not a person in the transactions. AGAIN, BASIC research and understanding of discrimination laws would have totally closed all those 'points' you think you have made. Don't like it? SPEAK TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

The point I'm getting at, is do you understand and accept how this action could cause anamosity towards the gay community and cause others who are undecided about gay marriage and homosexuality in general could be pushed into the no camp??

You said on the "women got fired" thread that actions have consequences

Do you stand by that statement and accept that this action could result in a consequence of increased negativity and hostility towards the gay community, and if so is it self imposed??

Or is this a case of "fuck them they are homophobes burn them at the stake"

It wasn't me who said actions have consequences, though that is true.

Ultimately, I just don't think something like this will build animosity the way you think it will. I remember Mr Doodles said the same of the BnB story. Support has only grown since.

Why? Because more gay people are out than ever. More people know gay people than ever. Real people in the real world. Rare new stories have no chance.

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Shouldn't be allowed. It's his job.

Didge, Tatchell I think. Not my spokesman.

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

it is different as they are not, not selling it because of what the customers is. so it is not discrimination against the customer. However the customer may be able to sue the store (not the checkout attendant directly) if they made a statement like "As a Christian/atheist/etc I am allowed to consume alcohol" then it would override the checkout persons dislike of doing so.(much like the baker's personal opinion is overridden by the companies requirement to operate lawfully)

that issues has more to do with the employee and employer discrimination act, it is arguable that the employee is unable to preform the required function and can be legally terminated. but it depends on the specifics of the employment contract (are the specifically employed as checkout staff), the employer may need to just move them to different role

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Shouldn't be allowed. It's his job.

Didge, Tatchell I think. Not my spokesman.

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

No You haven't addressed any point Address the point. it is the LAW, the one and only point of any relevance

YES all your 'points' have to do it if they want to run a business, not a debate it's not discrimination because they are a business not a person in the transactions. AGAIN, BASIC research and understanding of discrimination laws would have totally closed all those 'points' you think you have made. Don't like it? SPEAK TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE

Show me the law within the US?

You just keep regurgiating the same drivel never tackling the points.

I tackled all your points, in every singe case YES they have to. in fact you failed to make any relevant point at all because you don't understand the basics of the transaction, it is between a customer and a company not 2 people. so as only the customer is a person, the possibility of discrimination is limited to the customer ONLY. the company has no legal protection from discrimination as it is a company NOT a Muslims or gays or any of the other things you stated the status of the individual representing the company is of no relevance, you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the most basic concepts in regards to the issue that would be prerequisite to any sort of debate in the subject.

no one has made any points in relation to the USA, read the thread. all responses are in relation to an Australian baker and the current gay marriage vote in Australia

besides the fact that in the US, it is a state based law. as the OP points out it is currently under clarification in the courts.as les pointed out not all nations have as advanced systems

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

and with that you are wrong again it is NOT SOMEONE it is a company not a person

a Priest only can because religious institutions do not fall under the category of corporations, if they did(arguably should) then they could not refuse.

So NO, not a privilege all PEOPLE have the same right, COMPANIES do not as they are not people.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Not a priest no. Religious institutions are not the same as secular businesses.

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

and with that you are wrong again it is NOT SOMEONE it is a company not a person

a Priest only can because religious institutions do not fall under the category of corporations, if they did(arguably should) then they could not refuse.

So NO, not a privilege all PEOPLE have the same right, COMPANIES do not as they are not people.

So self employed people do not constitute as a company?

Since when?

There we go religious institutions and religious people you will find under EU law cannot be discriminated against their beliefs.

So again a homosexual has a right to be served by a buisness, but can be rightly refused by an employee if that gay person wants that him to promote something that goes against their beliefs. Now if the buisness has other employees, then no problem, that company would have someone else do the buisness transaction. If it is the owner of a family buisness, then they all have a right to refuse to promote a view against their belief.That means the homosexual would need to shop elsewhere. Of which they should of here and that clearly the couple is out to make a view bucks out of trying to discriminate against somone else belief

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Not a priest no. Religious institutions are not the same as secular businesses.

But to force religious people is okay with you. Thus you discriminating against them.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

Another case of you trying to force debate into a set model so you can use copy and pasted ideas as you are unable to think originally or critically.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

Thorin wrote:The Supreme Court has a tough question ahead: Where do you draw the line between free speech and discrimination?The case headed to the high court in the new term that begins next month centers on Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.Phillips claims he shouldn’t be forced to under the state’s anti-discrimination law and gained a strong ally this week when the Trump administration filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf.Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and DOJ attorneys claim there is no clear line between Phillips’s speech and that of his clients when he designs and creates a custom wedding cake.“He is not merely tolerating someone else’s message on his property; he is giving effect to their message by crafting a unique product with his own two hands,” the administration said in its 41-page brief.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

SOURCE THE HILL

We are talking about the US

So thank you also for posting the law.

As the law would not be broken where a person refuses to bake a cake that promotes belief.

He is not discriminating against the gay couple because they are gay.

He is refusing to make a cake that promotes gay marriage, thus political and this would not be breaking any law.

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Not a priest no. Religious institutions are not the same as secular businesses.

But to force religious people is okay with you. Thus you discriminating against them.

Like I said, the tolerant now becomes the intolerant.

I'd be forcing myself in the reverse situation. So not intolerant, just fair.

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

and with that you are wrong again it is NOT SOMEONE it is a company not a person

a Priest only can because religious institutions do not fall under the category of corporations, if they did(arguably should) then they could not refuse.

So NO, not a privilege all PEOPLE have the same right, COMPANIES do not as they are not people.

So self employed people do not constitute as a company?

Since when?

There we go religious institutions and religious people you will find under EU law cannot be discriminated against their beliefs.

So again a homosexual has a right to be served by a buisness, but can be rightly refused by an employee if that gay person wants that him to promote something that goes against their beliefs. Now if the buisness has other employees, then no problem, that company would have someone else do the buisness transaction. If it is the owner of a family buisness, then they all have a right to refuse to promote a view against their belief.That means the homosexual would need to shop elsewhere. Of which they should of here and that clearly the couple is out to make a view bucks out of trying to discriminate against somone else belief

As both have rights within the law on discrimination.

Self Employed ARE a company, which is what they LEGALLY are in the transaction which is EXACTLY why they in that transaction they are NOT covered by Discrimination laws

NO, an employee DOES NOT have the legal right to refuse service based on a personal stance, as they are not a 'person' in the transaction with the customer they are legally the representative of the company and must comply with the relevant law. The Employee can not be directly sued since they are covered by legal 'agency' for the company they represent, the customer however can sue the company the employee represents.

religious institutions are not companies, so it des not apply to them.

_________________My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

There we go religious institutions and religious people you will find under EU law cannot be discriminated against their beliefs.

So again a homosexual has a right to be served by a buisness, but can be rightly refused by an employee if that gay person wants that him to promote something that goes against their beliefs. Now if the buisness has other employees, then no problem, that company would have someone else do the buisness transaction. If it is the owner of a family buisness, then they all have a right to refuse to promote a view against their belief.That means the homosexual would need to shop elsewhere. Of which they should of here and that clearly the couple is out to make a view bucks out of trying to discriminate against somone else belief

As both have rights within the law on discrimination.

Self Employed ARE a company, which is what they LEGALLY are in the transaction which is EXACTLY why they in that transaction they are NOT covered by Discrimination laws

NO, an employee DOES NOT have the legal right to refuse service based on a personal stance, as they are not a 'person' in the transaction with the customer they are legally the representative of the company and must comply with the relevant law. The Employee can not be directly sued since they are covered by legal 'agency' for the company they represent, the customer however can sue the company the employee represents.

religious institutions are not companies, so it des not apply to them.

Which means that owner can refuse to promote a view that goes against his belief.He would be discriminating himself, if he denied servive to someone based on who they are and believe.Hence the difference you seem to be struggling with.Well I am afraid religious institutions are companies that get away Tax free half the time, also wrong.How do you think the Catholic Church is so wealthy, when it is a buisness?

Yes an employee within the EU can refuse to based on their beliefs. As its encroching on their beliefs. Hence why no Muslim can be forced to sell alochol. The company would have to provide them with different work within their company.

So where a company is one person or just a family, its them who is involved and have a right to refuse promoting an idea that conflicts with their beliefs. They have no right to refuse someone based on who they are and their beliefs.